Some odd discussions are taking place on the right side of the political spectrum surrounding climate change policies and energy prices.

Claims by Roger Meiners — a Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Arlington — that “the latest salvo [by the Obama administration] against fossil fuels, announced this week, ensures higher energy prices in the future. This will discourage domestic investment in favor of going to countries such as China, India, and South Africa that are not shy about building new coal-fired power plants” are fundamentally correct. Efforts by the Obama administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and will increase, energy prices above the non-GHG reduction counter-factual. And, indeed, raising energy prices slows economic growth and discourages domestic investment.

Editor’s Note: Below is a chart from DOE’s new report “The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities” estimating the increased water consumption that would result from CCS implementation. DOE explains in the the report (p. 42) that “Even if technological advances in CCS reduce the costs, the water and energy intensities of operating these systems are also potential barriers to deployment.”

When U.S. EPA released its draft rule for power plant greenhouse gas emissions earlier this month, it also handed the public a receipt — in the form of a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) — detailing the plan’s expected costs and benefits.

Long before the RIA was ever issued, however, interested parties were already haggling over the bill.

ST. MARYS – President Obama’s newly proposed restrictions on existing coal-fired power plants will cost electric consumers in Ohio an extra $40 per month, according to Bill Roberts, vice president and CFO of Buckeye Power Inc.

And the Obama administration’s goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 would have a negligible effect on the environment when compared to the rest of the world’s projected release of emissions from coal plants, he said.

“That entire reduction will be offset by less than one year’s growth of the Chinese emissions,” Roberts said Saturday at Midwest Electric’s 77th annual meeting at Memorial High School.

So-called clean coal power plants might not be the answer to new EPA regulations governing the reduction of carbon dioxide.

The EPA released Monday new requirements for Mississippi that would force the state to decrease carbon dioxide emissions 39 percent from 2005 levels. In 2012, the state expended 1,140 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt generated. The EPA wants a plan from the state to decrease that to 692 pounds per megawatt-hour by 2030. The goal of the regulations is to reduce the nation’s carbon emissions 30 percent overall.

Coal is the ugly stepchild of the energy world. And, right now, natural gas, the pretty child, is increasingly taking coal’s place. However, both are still the children of carbon, which is at its base a dirty fuel choice. Carbon dioxide is the big boogeyman for coal right now, but U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is already warning that natural gas is next in line for a scare.